Re: [dev] Re: a little bit of vi+zsh magic

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 11:15:11AM +0100, markus schnalke wrote:
>>
>> [2009-11-05 04:18] Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:13:56AM +0000, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Yes it's a shame. I think a suckless editor would simply be some kind
>>> >of a viewer that integrates the real ed. In a sense vi done right.
>>>
>>> It's called Sam.
>>
>> The problem with sam is that it depends on a graphical display. If
>> there is none available it's just like ed (with some extensions).
>>
>> As ed lives everywhere, while sam does not, I rather user ed.
>
> Sam has a documented protocol. It doesn't rely on a graphical display at all
> (although it does work rather nicely with a remote sam and a local graphical
> samterm). A curses client could easily be written. It still wouldn't be as
> efficient over the network as the graphical client, though.
>
> The main benefit of sam over ed is structural regexps, and filewise rather
> than linewise regexps. ed can be a pain in the ass in that regard at times.
> Even if sam doesn't live everywhere, I prefer it where it's available.

The client-server design is also a big win when editing files over
slow connections.

As much as I hate curses, I think the idea of having a curses
interface for the sam protocol would be interesting and perhaps even
useful, sam -d is a bit 'hardcore', and sadly rio terminals are not as
prevalent as one would like...

uriel

> --
> Kris Maglione
>
> Plenty of kind, decent, caring people have no religious beliefs, and
> they act out of the goodness of their hearts.  Conversely, plenty of
> people who profess to be religious, even those who worship regularly,
> show no particular interest in the world beyond themselves.
>        --John Danforth, priest, ambassador, senator (b. 1936)
>
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 05 2009 - 22:47:00 UTC